- 87,240
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
You're about a generation out on that estimate - you need to be looking at the 1920s when the British had finished screwing the Arabs out of a homeland and started shipping Jewish settlers in (who, to be fair, were settling in unclaimed land rather than within Arabic communities). The Arabs organised protests - not terribly happy at being betrayed by us - and when protests occur there are inevitably riots and deaths. As is usual with riots, blame's not easily laid - but it rather seems to have been a case of retaliation against each other ever since.
You'll want to look up the Nebi Musa riots and the Battle of Tel Hai that preceded it by a couple of weeks.
You've established a position that the state of Israel is illegally occupying some land that it took by force from another sovereign state. Clearly to justify this position to yourself you've examined facts and reached your conclusion.
So again, for what seems like about the 20th time this has been asked of you, which lands is Israel illegally occupying, from whom did they take them and what claim does this second sovereign state have to the lands that supercedes the claim that Israel has to them?
You've clearly got these facts to hand - otherwise you won't have reached your conclusion - and you can easily answer "The territory of Spamhammer, taken from the nation of Cheesistan during the war of 1275 despite Cheesistani pioneers discovering the unclaimed territory and settling it in 472BC" or the equivalent - but you're choosing to completely duck the question over and over and over again, linking to articles, videos and Wikipedia pages of other people's thoughts.
This will only lead to the conclusion that you don't want your position to be questioned at all. This generally only happens when a position is either so weak that it stands up to absolutely no scrutiny or when it's founded on sheer belief and has no facts to back it up. Belief has no place in this particular kind of discussion (which is marginally ironic, given that the conflict is masked by rival faiths).
I'm sure neither of these things applies to you and you've used facts to come to a well-considered opinion. But by not actually telling anyone what you think and why you think it, you look like you're just here to shout about how evil Israel is and plug your fingers in your metaphorical ears in case a response makes you question that belief.
You'll want to look up the Nebi Musa riots and the Battle of Tel Hai that preceded it by a couple of weeks.
Not if they are wrong. Though I'm not questioning them, I'm questioning you.
There is no authority so infallible as not to be wrong and thus no authority should be above question. But again, I'm not questioning them, I'm questioning you.
Law and values are irrelevant to right and wrong - the very fact you can say "present law" and "current values" indicates that law and values have been modified and thus either were not right or are not right. But again I'm not questioning them, I'm questioning you.
I'm not doing that either. I'm trying to get you to say how you've arrived at your premise, by questioning you.
You've established a position that the state of Israel is illegally occupying some land that it took by force from another sovereign state. Clearly to justify this position to yourself you've examined facts and reached your conclusion.
So again, for what seems like about the 20th time this has been asked of you, which lands is Israel illegally occupying, from whom did they take them and what claim does this second sovereign state have to the lands that supercedes the claim that Israel has to them?
You've clearly got these facts to hand - otherwise you won't have reached your conclusion - and you can easily answer "The territory of Spamhammer, taken from the nation of Cheesistan during the war of 1275 despite Cheesistani pioneers discovering the unclaimed territory and settling it in 472BC" or the equivalent - but you're choosing to completely duck the question over and over and over again, linking to articles, videos and Wikipedia pages of other people's thoughts.
This will only lead to the conclusion that you don't want your position to be questioned at all. This generally only happens when a position is either so weak that it stands up to absolutely no scrutiny or when it's founded on sheer belief and has no facts to back it up. Belief has no place in this particular kind of discussion (which is marginally ironic, given that the conflict is masked by rival faiths).
I'm sure neither of these things applies to you and you've used facts to come to a well-considered opinion. But by not actually telling anyone what you think and why you think it, you look like you're just here to shout about how evil Israel is and plug your fingers in your metaphorical ears in case a response makes you question that belief.
.
